Biophysical Impact of Non-Nutritive Additives on the Human Gut Microbiome

1. Introduction: The Collision of Modern Diet and Ancestral Biology in the Human Gut Microbiome

The human gastrointestinal tract is not merely a vessel for digestion; it is a complex, co-evolved ecosystem teeming with trillions of microorganisms that function virtually as an accessory organ. This microbial community, the gut microbiota, is integral to host metabolism, immune education, and defense against pathogens. For millennia, this ecosystem was maintained through a diet rich in complex, fermentable fibers and raw, whole foods—a nutritional landscape to which our microbial passengers adapted over evolutionary time. However, the last half-century has witnessed a radical transformation in the human food supply, characterized by the global dominance of Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs).

UPFs, as defined by the NOVA classification system, are industrial formulations typically devoid of intact food matrices and rich in cosmetic additives such as emulsifiers, non-nutritive sweeteners, preservatives, and coloring agents.¹ These products now constitute the majority of caloric intake in many high-income nations, correlating strongly with the rising tide of non-communicable diseases, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). While the epidemiological links are well-established, the mechanistic underpinnings involving the gut microbiota—and specifically the impact on beneficial genera like Lactobacillus—are only now being fully elucidated.

This report provides an exhaustive analysis of how UPF components systematically dismantle the ecological niches required for Lactobacillus colonization. By exploring the biophysical erosion of the mucus barrier, the chemical disruption of bacterial signaling, and the metabolic starvation caused by acellular nutrients, we reveal how the modern diet effectively starves, poisons, and displaces these critical ancestral microbes.

1.1 The Sentinel Genus: Lactobacillus in Human Physiology

To understand the magnitude of the disruption caused by UPFs, one must first appreciate the baseline function of Lactobacillus in a healthy gut. Historically, the genus Lactobacillus has been viewed as a monolithic group of beneficial lactic acid bacteria (LAB). However, a landmark taxonomic reclassification in 2020 recognized the extreme genotypic and phenotypic diversity of this group, splitting the original genus Lactobacillus into 25 distinct genera, including Lactiplantibacillus, Lacticaseibacillus, and Limosilactobacillus.³ Despite this new nomenclature, the functional role of this group—collectively referred to as "lactobacilli" in this report—remains consistent: they are the sentinels of mucosal health.

These facultative anaerobes primarily colonize the small intestine and the outer mucus layer of the colon.⁶ Their presence is not merely incidental; they perform critical ecosystem services that maintain host homeostasis:

• Colonization Resistance: Through the production of antimicrobial peptides known as bacteriocins (e.g., plantaricin, nisin) and the acidification of the luminal environment via lactic acid production, lactobacilli create a chemical barrier that prevents the encroachment of pathogens such as Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and Clostridioides difficile.⁷

• Barrier Integrity: Specific strains, such as those formerly classified as Lactobacillus rhamnosus, regulate the expression of tight junction proteins (e.g., zonulin, occludin) and stimulate mucin production by goblet cells. This reinforces the physical barrier that prevents systemic endotoxemia, a condition where bacterial toxins leak into the bloodstream.⁹

• Immune Modulation: Lactobacilli interact directly with dendritic cells in the gut lining, stimulating the differentiation of regulatory T cells (Tregs). This interaction is crucial for maintaining immune tolerance and suppressing excessive inflammatory responses that can lead to autoimmunity.¹¹

The modern Western diet, characterized by high UPF intake, appears to be fundamentally incompatible with the survival requirements of these organisms. By replacing the complex, fiber-rich matrix of whole foods with a chemically altered, nutrient-dense but microbially sparse sludge, we have created an environment that selects against our oldest microbial friends.

2. The Detergent Effect: Dietary Emulsifiers and Mucus Barrier Erosion

One of the most pervasive classes of additives in UPFs are emulsifiers. Used to stabilize textures, prevent separation, and extend shelf life in products ranging from ice cream to salad dressings, these compounds act as detergents within the gastrointestinal tract. Research indicates that these surfactants fundamentally alter the biophysical properties of the gut environment, eroding the physical niche that Lactobacillus relies upon.

2.1 Mechanisms of Mucus Disruption

The intestinal epithelium is protected by a sophisticated bi-layered mucus structure. The inner layer is dense, firmly adherent, and largely sterile, serving as the final shield for epithelial cells. The outer layer is looser and hosts the commensal microbiota. Lactobacillus species rely on specific cell-surface mechanisms, such as mucus-binding proteins (MucBP) and pili, to adhere to this outer layer without breaching the inner defense.¹²

Synthetic emulsifiers, particularly Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) and Polysorbate 80 (P80), have been shown to drastically reduce the thickness and integrity of this mucus layer.¹⁴ The mechanism is biophysical and two-fold:

1. Surface Tension Reduction: Similar to their action in food products, these surfactants reduce the surface tension at the mucus-lumen interface. This causes the complex glycoprotein matrix of the mucus to fluidize or dissolve, effectively washing away the "soil" in which Lactobacillus anchors itself.¹⁵

2. Microbial Encroachment: By fluidizing the mucus, emulsifiers facilitate the migration of highly motile bacteria—often Proteobacteria or flagellated pathobionts—across the inner mucus layer to contact epithelial cells. This phenomenon, known as "bacterial encroachment," triggers chronic low-grade inflammation.¹⁴

2.2 Differential Toxicity and Lactobacillus Displacement

The altered environment created by emulsifiers is not universally hostile; rather, it exerts a strong selective pressure that disadvantages Lactobacillus. In vitro models using the mucosal simulator of the human intestinal microbial ecosystem (M-SHIME) demonstrated that exposure to P80 and CMC reduced overall microbial diversity while increasing the pro-inflammatory potential of the remaining microbiota.¹⁶

Crucially, the presence of these emulsifiers disrupts the specific adhesion mechanisms of Lactobacillus. Lactobacillus species utilize Surface Layer (S-layer) proteins—crystalline arrays of protein subunits that cover the cell surface—to interact with host tissues and exclude pathogens. Studies have shown that high concentrations of Polysorbate 80 can destabilize these S-layer proteins, stripping the bacteria of their protective armor and adhesion capabilities.¹⁷ Specifically, P80 exposure at higher concentrations and temperatures was found to increase the aggregation of S-layer proteins, effectively denaturing the tools the bacteria use to survive in the gut flow.¹⁷

Furthermore, emulsifier-induced environments favor mucin-degrading specialists (e.g., Ruminococcus gnavus or Akkermansia) and flagellated bacteria over the non-motile or less motile Lactobacillus species. This results in competitive displacement, where Lactobacillus is outcompeted for attachment sites in the thinning mucus layer.¹⁹ The loss of the mucus scaffold means that lactobacilli are simply washed out of the system during peristalsis, unable to maintain a foothold.

2.3 The "Cleaning" of the Gut: Broad-Spectrum Antimicrobial Effects

The profound impact of these additives is best understood as a "washing" or "cleaning" of the gut lining. Research comparing various emulsifiers found that biotechnological emulsifiers like rhamnolipids and sophorolipids, as well as natural extracts like soy lecithin, eliminated between 87% and 91% of the total viable bacterial population in fecal samples after just 48 hours of exposure.¹⁹

While Lactobacillus is generally considered a robust genus, this broad-spectrum antimicrobial effect disrupts the intricate cross-feeding networks they rely on. The destruction of the biofilm architecture by surfactants prevents Lactobacillus from forming the protective aggregates necessary for their survival and function.²¹ Even if the Lactobacillus cells are not killed outright, the destruction of their community structure renders them ecologically impotent.

Table 1: Impact of Common Dietary Emulsifiers on Gut Microecology

Emulsifier	Primary Mechanism of Action	Specific Impact on Lactobacillus & Microbiota
Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)	Mucus thinning; erosion of the sterile inner layer.	Increases mucus-associated bacteria; promotes inflammation; reduces microbial diversity; linked to loss of colonization resistance.14
Polysorbate 80 (P80)	Increases bacterial motility; alters gene expression (flagellin); destabilizes S-layer proteins.	Increases bioactive flagellin levels; disrupts S-layer protein integrity in Lactobacillus; correlates with decreased Lactobacillus abundance in murine models.16
Glycerol Monolaurate (GML)	Antimicrobial activity; surfactant properties.	Linked to metabolic syndrome signatures; decreases abundance of beneficial taxa like Akkermansia and likely sensitive lactobacilli.19
Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate (SSL)	Metabolic alteration; membrane interaction.	Reduces Clostridia class; increases Enterobacteriaceae, shifting the gut away from fermentative balance.23
Soy Lecithin	Surfactant activity.	In some models, eliminates vast portions (up to 87%) of viable bacteria, disrupting the colonization network.19

3. Chemical Signaling Disruption: Non-Nutritive Sweeteners (NNS)

The replacement of sugar with non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) is a hallmark of "diet" UPFs, marketed as a healthier alternative to combat obesity. While these compounds are designed to be metabolically inert in the human host, they are biologically active in the gut lumen, interacting directly with bacterial physiology and quorum sensing mechanisms.

3.1 Bacteriostatic Effects and Growth Inhibition

Contrary to the assumption that NNS pass through the gut unchanged and unnoticed by the microbiota, several artificial sweeteners exhibit bacteriostatic properties that can selectively inhibit Lactobacillus.

• Sucralose: Perhaps the most scrutinized NNS, sucralose consumption has been linked to significant dysbiosis. Studies indicate that sucralose can alter the Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio and specifically decrease the abundance of Lactobacillus acidophilus.²⁴ In rodent models, the administration of Splenda (a commercial formulation of sucralose) reduced total anaerobic bacteria counts, with profound decreases in beneficial Bifidobacteria, Lactobacilli, and Bacteroides.²⁵ The mechanism appears to involve the inhibition of metabolic enzymes or alterations in nutrient transport systems within the bacteria, effectively starving them or halting their replication cycles.²⁵

• Saccharin: The effects of saccharin are complex and dose-dependent. While some veterinary studies suggest it may paradoxically increase Lactobacillus counts in piglets ²⁶, other data indicate it can induce dysbiosis and glucose intolerance by shifting the microbiome's function rather than just its composition.²⁸ High concentrations have been shown to inhibit bacterial growth in vitro, acting similarly to weak antibiotics.²⁹ This discrepancy suggests that while some strains may adapt, the overall ecosystem balance is perturbed.

• Aspartame & Acesulfame-K: These sweeteners have been linked to reduced microbial diversity. Acesulfame-K, in particular, has been shown to disrupt the network structure of the microbiome, potentially affecting the resilience of Lactobacillus populations against stress.³⁰

3.2 Disruption of Quorum Sensing: Silencing the Conversation

Bacteria communicate via chemical signals called autoinducers to coordinate group behaviors, a process known as quorum sensing (QS). Lactobacillus species utilize QS systems (such as the two-component system encoded by the pln locus) to regulate the production of bacteriocins—toxins that kill competing pathogens.³¹

Research suggests that food additives, including certain sweeteners, can interfere with these signaling pathways. If Lactobacillus cannot "sense" its population density due to chemical interference from NNS, it fails to upregulate the genes required for biofilm formation and colonization resistance.³² The pln locus, responsible for the production of plantaricin, is highly sensitive to environmental stressors. Additives that mimic or block these signal molecules effectively "silence" the bacteria, making them vulnerable to displacement even if they are not killed outright. Without the coordinated defense of bacteriocin production, Lactobacillus colonies are easily overrun by invaders.

3.3 The Paradox of Prebiotic Sweeteners: Polyols and Rare Sugars

It is crucial to note a divergence in the data regarding sugar alcohols (polyols) and rare sugars. Unlike high-intensity synthetic sweeteners (sucralose, aspartame), polyols like maltitol, xylitol, and sorbitol, as well as rare sugars like isomaltulose, are fermentable substrates. Because they are not fully absorbed in the small intestine, they reach the colon where they can be utilized by bacteria.

Some studies indicate these can boost Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium populations, acting as weak prebiotics.26 However, there is a catch: these compounds are often less common in mass-market UPFs compared to the cheaper, high-intensity options like acesulfame-K and sucralose. Furthermore, excessively high intake of polyols can lead to osmotic diarrhea, which physically flushes the microbiota from the gut, negating any potential prebiotic benefit. Thus, while chemically distinct, their presence in UPFs does not inherently redeem the category.

4. The Antimicrobial Barrier: Preservatives and Metabolic Inhibition

Preservatives are added to UPFs with the explicit intent of inhibiting microbial growth to prevent spoilage and extend shelf life. Unfortunately, these compounds rarely distinguish between spoilage organisms (like molds or Listeria) and the beneficial commensal microbiota residing in the consumer's gut. The consumption of preservative-laden foods subjects the gut microbiome to a constant, low-level antimicrobial assault.

4.1 Inorganic Salts and Acids: The Daily Dose of Inhibition

• Sodium Benzoate: Widely used in acidic foods such as sodas, pickles, and salad dressings, sodium benzoate has been shown to significantly reduce the growth of Lactobacillus plantarum and inhibit its acid production.³⁴ The mechanism of action is intracellular acidification. Benzoate enters the bacterial cell in its undissociated form, dissociates within the cytoplasm, and forces the bacteria to expend energy pumping out protons to maintain pH homeostasis. This energy drain disrupts anaerobic fermentation (glycolysis), halting growth and metabolic activity.³⁴

• Sodium Nitrite: Common in processed meats like bacon, ham, and sausages, nitrites have broad antimicrobial activity. While they are intended to stop Clostridium botulinum, high concentrations—often found in the micro-environment of digesting food particles—can inhibit the growth of lactobacilli. Furthermore, nitrites interfere with the bacteria's ability to produce protective nitric oxide, a key signaling molecule for gut health.³⁵

• Sulfites: Found in dried fruits, wines, and processed potato products, sulfites are particularly toxic to beneficial gut bacteria. Research indicates that sulfites inhibit the growth of four major beneficial species, including Lactobacillus, at concentrations generally regarded as safe (GRAS) for food.³⁷ Sulfites disrupt the disulfide bridges in bacterial enzymes, effectively halting metabolism and killing the bacteria.

• Potassium Sorbate: Used in dairy products and baked goods, sorbates have been shown to reduce Lactobacillus counts in food matrices. In some contexts, potassium sorbate was found to be even more effective at reducing Lactobacillus populations than it was at reducing coliforms, suggesting a dangerous selectivity that could invert the healthy ratio of Firmicutes to Proteobacteria.³⁸

4.2 Inhibition of Defensive Capabilities: The Bacteriocin Shutdown

A critical, often overlooked aspect of preservatives is their impact on the defensive capabilities of Lactobacillus. As previously noted, Lactobacillus species produce bacteriocins (e.g., plantaricin, nisin) to kill competitors and maintain their niche. However, the presence of preservatives can act antagonistically to this function.

While some studies show synergy between purified bacteriocins (like nisin) and preservatives when used in food processing to kill pathogens ³⁹, the in vivo reality is different. When Lactobacillus is under metabolic stress from preservatives (e.g., struggling to maintain pH homeostasis due to benzoic acid), energy is diverted away from secondary metabolism, including the costly production of bacteriocins. This repression of the pln locus (in L. plantarum) or similar gene clusters reduces the colonization resistance of the gut.⁴⁰ The bacterium survives, perhaps, but it is disarmed, unable to fight off the pathogens that the preservative was meant to kill in the food but not in the gut.

4.3 Synergy of Destruction

UPFs rarely contain just one additive. They contain a cocktail of emulsifiers, sweeteners, and preservatives. The cumulative effect of these compounds is likely synergistic. An emulsifier might strip the mucus layer, exposing the bacteria; a sweetener might confuse its quorum sensing, preventing biofilm formation; and a preservative might inhibit its metabolic enzymes. This multi-pronged attack creates a hostile environment that is far more damaging than any single ingredient would suggest.

5. The Acellular Nutrient Environment: Starvation in a Sea of Calories

Beyond additives, the defining feature of UPFs is the physical degradation of the food matrix. Whole foods provide "cellular" nutrients—sugars, starches, and proteins encapsulated in plant cell walls (fiber)—that resist upper-gut digestion and reach the colon to feed the microbiota. UPFs provide "acellular" nutrients: refined sugars, flours, and fats that are absorbed rapidly in the small intestine. This results in a paradoxical state for the colonic microbiota: starvation in the midst of caloric excess.

5.1 Fiber Deprivation and Mucin Switching

Lactobacillus species are fundamentally saccharolytic; they evolved to ferment complex carbohydrates found in plants and milk. In a UPF-rich diet lacking fermentable fiber (Macbiota-Accessible Carbohydrates, or MACs), these bacteria face a nutrient desert.

1. Starvation: Without dietary substrates such as resistant starch, inulin, or oligosaccharides, Lactobacillus abundance plummets. They cannot sustain the replication rates needed to counteract the flow of the gut.⁷

2. Mucin Switching: In the absence of dietary fiber, other members of the microbiota, such as Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, possess the enzymatic machinery to switch to consuming the host's mucus layer as a primary food source.⁴³ While Lactobacillus generally does not degrade mucin, the erosion of this layer by other starving bacteria destroys the physical scaffolding Lactobacillus uses to adhere to the gut wall. They lose their home because their neighbors ate it.

5.2 Thermal Toxicity: Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs)

UPFs are often subjected to extreme heat processing methods like extrusion, frying, and baking. These processes facilitate the Maillard reaction, improving flavor and color but creating Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs).

• Bioavailability: Dietary AGEs are not fully absorbed in the small intestine; a significant portion reaches the colon.

• Microbial Toxicity: High AGE diets have been linked to reduced microbial diversity and specific changes in Lactobacillus populations.⁴⁴

• Mechanism of Harm: AGEs can act as inflammatory signals, triggering RAGE (Receptor for Advanced Glycation Endproducts) on the gut epithelium. This interaction increases oxidative stress in the gut lumen. Lactobacillus species, which are microaerophilic or anaerobic, are sensitive to the oxidative stress generated by this inflamed environment.⁴⁶ The inflamed gut selects for aerotolerant pathobionts (like E. coli) over the beneficial anaerobes.

Table 2: The Acellular Nutrient Impact

Component	Mechanism	Consequence for Lactobacillus
Lack of Fiber (MACs)	Nutrient deprivation in the colon.	Starvation; population decline; loss of substrate for SCFA production.
Acellular Sugar/Starch	Rapid absorption in small intestine.	No substrate reaches the distal gut; favours small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) of rapid growers, disadvantaging colonic lactobacilli.
Dietary AGEs	Oxidative stress; RAGE activation.	Inflammation; oxidative toxicity to anaerobes; promotion of dysbiosis.

6. Clinical and Observational Evidence: The Signal and the Noise

Translating mechanistic findings from in vitro and animal models to human populations is complex due to the confounding variables of diet and lifestyle. However, a synthesis of observational studies and clinical trials reveals a clear, disturbing trend.

6.1 The "Yogurt Paradox"

A major confounder in epidemiological studies involving UPFs is the classification of sweetened yogurt. Under the NOVA system, sweetened fruit yogurt is classified as a Group 4 UPF due to the presence of additives (thickeners, flavors) and added sugar.⁴⁸ However, unlike a soda or a potato chip, yogurt delivers a massive bolus of live bacteria, specifically Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus.

• Observation: Large cohort studies, such as the TwinsUK cohort, often find that "UPF consumers" who consume significant amounts of yogurt actually have higher levels of Lactobacillus and Streptococcus in their stool.⁵⁰

• Interpretation: This finding does not exonerate UPFs. Rather, it represents a transient increase in allochthonous (food-borne) bacteria. These bacteria are passing through; they are not necessarily colonizing or restoring the resident (autochthonous) Lactobacillus guilds that protect the gut long-term.⁵⁰ When yogurt consumption stops, these populations likely disappear. The "net effect" of a non-yogurt UPF diet (e.g., soda, chips, nuggets) is almost universally a decrease in Lactobacillus abundance.⁵¹

6.2 Human Cohort Data

• Western Diet Correlation: Observational studies consistently link Western dietary patterns (high fat, low fiber, high UPF) with a reduction in Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium and a concomitant increase in Proteobacteria.⁵¹ In the Pelotas Birth Cohort, adolescents with high UPF intake showed distinct shifts in microbiota profiles, with correlations suggesting a loss of beneficial diversity.⁵²

• Specific Additive Trials: Small-scale human trials with emulsifiers (CMC) have confirmed that these additives alone, even without a full UPF diet, are sufficient to induce microbiota encroachment and reduce diversity.¹⁴ This suggests that the additives are drivers of dysbiosis independent of the nutritional profile of the food.

• Cross-Sectional Analysis: In elderly populations, high UPF intake correlates with distinct dysbiotic profiles, often characterized by a loss of butyrate producers and beneficial Firmicutes, including Lactobacillus.⁵⁴

6.3 Animal Models: Establishing Causality

Animal studies provide the clearest causality because diet can be strictly controlled. Mice fed UPF-mimicking diets or specific additives (P80, sucralose, sulfites) consistently show:

1. Rapid Loss: A precipitous drop in Lactobacillus species abundance.⁵⁵

2. Barrier Failure: Thinning of the mucus layer and increased epithelial permeability.

3. Susceptibility: Increased susceptibility to chemically induced colitis and pathogen infection.²² In one study, the administration of L. reuteri was sufficient to inhibit the obesity associated with a Western diet, highlighting that the loss of this microbe is a key step in the pathology of the diet.⁵⁶

7. Systemic Consequences: From Dysbiosis to Disease

The decline of Lactobacillus colonization is not merely an ecological footnote; it has profound physiological consequences for the host, rippling out from the gut to distal organs.

7.1 Loss of Colonization Resistance and Pathogen Bloom

The primary function of Lactobacillus is to occupy the niche that pathogens seek. When UPFs erode this population:

• Pathogen Bloom: The gut becomes susceptible to colonization by food-borne pathogens like Salmonella, Listeria, and E. coli. For example, Lactobacillus usually excludes Salmonella by lowering pH and producing bacteriocins; in its absence, Salmonella thrives.⁸

• Antibiotic Resistance: There is emerging evidence that artificial sweeteners can promote the horizontal transfer of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) via plasmid conjugation. In a Lactobacillus-depleted gut, these ARGs are more likely to be taken up by opportunistic pathogens, creating reservoirs of resistance.⁵⁸

7.2 The Leaky Gut and Metabolic Endotoxemia

Lactobacillus strains are essential for maintaining tight junctions. Their depletion, combined with the mucus-thinning effect of emulsifiers, leads to increased intestinal permeability ("leaky gut").

• Endotoxemia: Lipopolysaccharide (LPS), a toxin from the cell walls of Gram-negative bacteria, translocates into the bloodstream. This condition, metabolic endotoxemia, is a potent trigger of systemic inflammation.⁵⁹

• Chronic Disease: This systemic inflammation is the mechanistic link between UPFs and metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, and autoimmunity.²

7.3 Distal Effects: The Mammary Gland Axis

The impact of UPFs extends beyond the gut. Remarkably, research has shown that diet modulates the microbiome of the mammary gland. In primate models, consumption of a Mediterranean diet led to a 10-fold higher abundance of Lactobacillus in mammary tissue compared to a Western diet.⁶¹ This suggests that the gut acts as a reservoir for bacteria that colonize distal sites. A UPF-induced depletion of gut Lactobacillus could therefore compromise the microbiome of breast tissue, with potential implications for breast health and cancer risk.⁶¹

8. Conclusion: The Industrial Dismantling of the Microbiome

The impact of ultra-processed foods on Lactobacillus colonization is multifaceted, operating through physical, chemical, and ecological vectors. UPFs act as a triple threat to our ancestral microbial partners:

1. Starvation: By removing fermentable fibers, UPFs deny Lactobacillus its primary energy source, leading to population collapse and the erosion of the mucus barrier by starving neighbors.

2. Chemical Warfare: Preservatives and sweeteners exert direct bacteriostatic pressure and interfere with bacterial signaling (quorum sensing), weakening the ability of Lactobacillus to organize, defend itself, and maintain its niche.

3. Habitat Destruction: Emulsifiers chemically erode the mucus layer, destroying the physical substrate required for Lactobacillus adhesion and allowing aggressive pathobionts to displace them.

This "industrialization" of the gut microbiome represents a fundamental shift in human biology. The loss of resident Lactobacillus species degrades the host's colonization resistance, paving the way for chronic inflammation, metabolic dysregulation, and increased susceptibility to infection. While transient reintroduction via probiotics or fermented foods may offer temporary relief, the underlying ecological damage caused by the continuous consumption of the UPF matrix—and its cocktail of additives—creates an environment hostile to the long-term colonization of these "Old Friends." Restoring the gut ecosystem likely requires not just the addition of bacteria, but the removal of the chemical insults that drive their extinction. The evidence suggests that for the sake of our microbiome, we must look beyond the calorie and consider the chemical ecology of what we eat.

Works cited

1. Ultra-processed foods: Implications for gastrointestinal health - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12476677/

2. Ultra-Processed Foods: A Narrative Review of the Impact on the Human Gut Microbiome and Variations in Classification Methods - PubMed Central, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11174918/

3. Lactobacillus spp. for Gastrointestinal Health: Current and Future Perspectives - PMC - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9019120/

4. Special Issue “An Update on Lactobacillus”: Editorial - PMC - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10303995/

5. New names for important probiotic Lactobacillus species, accessed January 3, 2026, https://isappscience.org/new-names-for-important-probiotic-lactobacillus-species/

6. Gut3Gel: A High Throughput Mucus Model for Culturing Human Intestinal Microbiota, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.21.639490v1.full-text

7. The Detrimental Impact of Ultra-Processed Foods on the Human Gut Microbiome and Gut Barrier - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11901572/

8. Efficacy of Lactobacillus animalis and Propionibacterium freudenreichii-Based Feed Additives in Reducing Salmonella-Associated Health and Performance Effects in Commercial Beef Calves - PubMed Central, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9598054/

9. Gut microbiome and human health: Exploring how the probiotic genus Lactobacillus modulate immune responses - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9638459/

10. Gut microbiota, intestinal permeability, and systemic inflammation: a narrative review - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10954893/

11. Impact of Western Diet and Ultra-Processed Food on the Intestinal Mucus Barrier - PMC, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10377275/

12. Lactobacillus Adhesion to Mucus - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3257693/

13. Lactobacillus adhesion to mucus - PubMed, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22254114/

14. Ultra-processed foods as a possible culprit for the rising prevalence of inflammatory bowel diseases - Frontiers, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2022.1058373/full

15. Dietary emulsifier-induced low-grade inflammation promotes colon carcinogenesis - PMC, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5214513/

16. Dietary emulsifiers directly alter human microbiota composition and gene expression ex vivo potentiating intestinal inflammation - PubMed Central, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5940336/

17. Effect of Polysorbate 80 Concentration on Thermal and Photostability of a Monoclonal Antibody - PMC - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3581664/

18. Polysorbate 80 improves the adhesion and survival of yogurt starters with cholesterol uptake abilities - PMC - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9284390/

19. Dietary Emulsifiers Alter Composition and Activity of the Human Gut Microbiota in vitro, Irrespective of Chemical or Natural Emulsifier Origin - Frontiers, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.577474/full

20. Direct impact of commonly used dietary emulsifiers on human gut microbiota - PMC, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7986288/

21. Polysorbates prevent biofilm formation and pathogenesis of Escherichia coli O104:H4 - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5176131/

22. Food additives: Assessing the impact of exposure to permitted emulsifiers on bowel and metabolic health – introducing the FADiets study - PubMed Central, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6899614/

23. The Impact of Food Additives on the Abundance and Composition of Gut Microbiota - MDPI, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/28/2/631

24. Ten-Week Sucralose Consumption Induces Gut Dysbiosis and Altered Glucose and Insulin Levels in Healthy Young Adults - PubMed Central, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8880058/

25. Potential Effects of Sucralose and Saccharin on Gut Microbiota: A Review - PMC - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9029443/

26. Dietary supplementation with lactose or artificial sweetener enhances swine gut Lactobacillus population abundance | British Journal of Nutrition - Cambridge University Press & Assessment, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/dietary-supplementation-with-lactose-or-artificial-sweetener-enhances-swine-gut-lactobacillus-population-abundance/D9ECCEBC90F06627436023C374441186

27. Artificial Sweeteners: A Double-Edged Sword for Gut Microbiome - PMC - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12025785/

28. How Artificial Sweeteners Disrupt the Gut Microbiome, Or Do They? - News-Medical.Net, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.news-medical.net/health/How-Artificial-Sweeteners-Disrupt-the-Gut-Microbiome-Or-Do-They.aspx

29. Non-nutritive sweeteners possess a bacteriostatic effect and alter gut microbiota in mice, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6033410/

30. Synthetic vs. non-synthetic sweeteners: their differential effects on gut microbiome diversity and function - Frontiers, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1531131/full

31. Bacteriocin production enhancing mechanism of Lactiplantibacillus paraplantarum RX-8 response to Wickerhamomyces anomalus Y-5 by transcriptomic and proteomic analyses - Frontiers, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1111516/full

32. Quorum-Sensing Inhibitors from Probiotics as a Strategy to Combat Bacterial Cell-to-Cell Communication Involved in Food Spoilage and Food Safety - MDPI, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/8/12/711

33. Impact of artificial sweeteners and rare sugars on the gut microbiome - PMC - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11315849/

34. Effect of Sodium Benzoate on the Fermentative Activity of Lactobacillus plantarum in Fermented Prawn Pickle | Fishery Technology - Indian Agricultural Research Journals, accessed January 3, 2026, https://epubs.icar.org.in/index.php/FT/article/view/24092

35. Nitrate Reduction to Nitrite, Nitric Oxide and Ammonia by Gut Bacteria under Physiological Conditions | PLOS One - Research journals, accessed January 3, 2026, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0119712

36. Effect of sodium nitrite and sodium chloride on growth of lactic acid bacteria - PubMed, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1598855/

37. Sulfites inhibit the growth of four species of beneficial gut bacteria at concentrations regarded as safe for food - PubMed Central, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5646858/

38. Full article: The effect of three different preservatives on the numbers and types of bacteria, Brix percentage, pH and nutritional composition of bovine colostrum sourced from New Zealand dairy farms - Taylor & Francis, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00480169.2024.2392686

39. Potential Impact of Combined Inhibition by Bacteriocins and Chemical Substances of Foodborne Pathogenic and Spoilage Bacteria: A Review - MDPI, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/16/3128

40. Quorum-Sensing Regulation of Constitutive Plantaricin by Lactobacillus plantarum Strains under a Model System for Vegetables and Fruits - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3911083/

41. An overview of the mosaic bacteriocin pln loci from Lactobacillus plantarum - ResearchGate, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222431336_An_overview_of_the_mosaic_bacteriocin_pln_loci_from_Lactobacillus_plantarum

42. Gut Microbiota: Association with Fiber Intake, Ultra-Processed Food Consumption, Sex, Body Mass Index, and Socioeconomic Status in Medical Students - MDPI, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/16/23/4241

43. Gut Dysbiosis and Western Diet in the Pathogenesis of Essential Arterial Hypertension: A Narrative Review - MDPI, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/4/1162

44. Advanced glycation end products dietary restriction effects on bacterial gut microbiota in peritoneal dialysis patients; a randomized open label controlled trial | PLOS One - Research journals, accessed January 3, 2026, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0184789

45. Advanced Glycation End Products (AGEs) in Diet and Skin in Relation to Stool Microbiota: The Rotterdam Study - MDPI, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/11/2567

46. Dietary Advanced Glycation End-products Elicit Toxicological Effects by Disrupting Gut Microbiome and Immune Homeostasis - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9885815/

47. Role of gut microbiota in the modulation of the health effects of advanced glycation end‑products (Review) - Spandidos Publications, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/ijmm.2023.5247

48. Building healthy dietary patterns with ultra-processed foods - Publication : USDA ARS, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publication/?seqNo115=409105

49. The UN Decade of Nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing - PubMed Central, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10261019/

50. Yoghurt consumption is associated with changes in the composition of the human gut microbiome and metabolome - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8812230/

51. Ultra-Processed Foods: A Narrative Review of the Impact on the Human Gut Microbiome and Variations in Classification Methods - MDPI, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/16/11/1738

52. Exploring the relationship between ultra-processed food consumption and gut microbiota at school age in a Brazilian birth cohort - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11960759/

53. Exploring the relationship between ultra-processed food consumption and gut microbiota at school age in a Brazilian birth coh, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.scielosp.org/pdf/csp/2025.v41n2/e00094424/en

54. Association between ultra-processed food consumption and gut microbiota in senior subjects with overweight/obesity and metabolic syndrome - Frontiers, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.976547/full

55. Gut Microbiota and Colonization Resistance against Bacterial Enteric Infection | Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews - ASM Journals, accessed January 3, 2026, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mmbr.00007-19

56. Microbial Reprogramming Inhibits Western Diet-Associated Obesity - PMC - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3707834/

57. Enhancing resistance to Salmonella typhimurium in yellow-feathered broilers: a study of a strain of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum as probiotic feed additives - PubMed Central, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11615061/

58. Non-caloric artificial sweeteners modulate conjugative transfer of multi-drug resistance plasmid in the gut microbiota - PMC, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9762752/

59. Food Emulsifiers and Metabolic Syndrome: The Role of the Gut Microbiota - PMC - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9331555/

60. Ultra-Processed Foods, Gut Microbiota, and Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Critical Review of Emerging Evidence - MDPI, accessed January 3, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/16/2677

61. Consumption of Mediterranean versus Western Diet Leads to Distinct Mammary Gland Microbiome Populations - PMC - NIH, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6338220/

62. Consumption of Mediterranean versus Western Diet Leads to Distinct Mammary Gland Microbiome Populations - PubMed, accessed January 3, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30282037/